At the 8:30 break: Great line by Newt, Obama scares seniors every day. He made a strong substantive point, which is that why should be have to live in a system where a President can threaten to withhold social security benefits. It goes to the heart of individual autonomy. My wife responded, “Newt for V.P.” I think he’s earning that spot but may also be the comeback kid in this primary season. He’s dominating the debate in the early part because he refuses to take Wolf Blitzer’s bait and getting into tit-for-tat with other candidates. Romney just isn’t good attacking; Perry pretty much laughed him off and Romney looked bad. He should learn from this, make his own case and don’t take the moderator’s bait. Perry dealt well with the Ponzi scheme issue. Herman Cain came across well. All in all, Newt starred, Perry was good, Romney not so much.

At the 8:50 break: Mostly blah, blah, blah. Newt excellent again, Herman Cain close behind relating his family and work history. Perry and Romney less of the emphasis. Bachman is almost non-existent on stage. Romney still not good at attacking Perry, just doesn’t come across well. As I was watching, I kept thinking, why is this just a two person race? Newt, for all his baggage, is great on stage, and Herman Cain always is a present pleasant surprise.

At the 9:20 break: Perry on the “almost treasonous” comment, explains that using the Fed for political purposes is wrong and being used by this administration to cover up bad fiscal policy. Blitzer overstated what Perry had said, claiming Perry wanted Bernanke tried for treason. Newt nailed it again, when Blitzer brought up oil industry “loopholes,” Newt said I thought you were talking about GE, and every “green credit” is a tax loophole; I favor people who create energy.

Perry was good on the Gardasil issue, saying it was a mistake and would do it differently; that’s how candidates need to deal with mistakes, admit it and stop digging. Bachmann was horrible (in my view, others probably disagree) on Gardasil, referring to “little girls who have a negative reaction to this drug” don’t “get a mulligan.” Bachmann suggested Perry did it for campaign donations, Perry said it was Merck and donations had nothing to do with it.

Bachmann exhibited profound lack of understanding of the constitutionality issue as to mandate. It is a federal e problem, not a state issue (depending upon what a particular state’s constitution says). She didn’t seem to understand the federal/state distinction, and just kept saying “it’s unconstitutional” even if done by a state.

At 9:45 break: Perry on immigration pretty much endorsed Dream Act, stood by it. This could be a problem for him. Bachmann hit him pretty good on it. Perry came back and said it’s not like the Dream Act, that it’s a state’s rights issue for people who are pursuing citizenship. I’m not familiar enough with the Texas law — any commenters have something to add on this?

Huntsmann said that Perry made a treasonous comment by saying can’t secure border. What? I guess it was a jab at Perry’s comments about Bernanke.

Newt on national security — civil war in Mexico, underestimated threat in Middle East, and national industrial base to be competitive with China. Ron Paul — we’re under threat because we occupy so many countries; what would we do if China did to us what we do to others. Santorum went after Paul, said he has blamed U.S. for 9/11, it’s irresponsible, we were not attacked because of our actions but because of who we are and what we stand for. Paul quoted bin Laden on bases in Saudi Arabia and over Palestine. Audience booed loudly.

End Game Probing Analysis: I thought it was an interesting debate. Perry clearly was under fire most of the night, but better he deals with these issues now and works out kinks in his answers. Romney was okay, just okay. Newt again was the star, Herman Cain close behind. Bachmann seemed like someone drowning who’s grasping at anything. Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Probably a pipe dream, but I think there are openings for this to be more than a two-way race.

Comments

“Overall, I was impressed by the debate. Lots of good Right Wing arguments got aired that are usually not heard on a National Channel. Compare the passion, the fireworks, the clearly stated plans heard tonight with any of Obama’s last six speeches and the result is clear:

Obama was the biggest loser by far.”

YES. Very gratifying. I agree, MrMichael. Also re Bachmann and Perry.

#1 Gingrich; #2 Bachmann or Perry; #3 Cain. Santorum did better, but he talks too much in terms of himself instead of the issues.

“Yes I too am excited about Rick Perry’s “welfare is a Ponzi scheme” speech. Even more so over the fact that, far from frightening off the voters, his honesty appears to be making them more enthusiastic. The problem for Rick is that his stout words are in severe danger of being eclipsed by an even finer speech by Sarah Palin at Indianola, Iowa. (Thanks to Richard North for drawing it to my attention). It was so inspirational, so true that it prompted even her traditional enemy the New York Times to ask:

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

I think there is. I think if she goes on like this, all bets for Perry, Bachmann, Paul are off. I think President Palin might just be the only game in town.”

Bachmann exhibited profound lack of understanding of the constitutionality issue as to mandate. It is a federal e problem, not a state issue (depending upon what a particular state’s constitution says). She didn’t seem to understand the federal/state distinction, and just kept saying “it’s unconstitutional” even if done by a state.

Given that the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the states, how much of that separation is still there? I suspect that Bachmann is highlighting that issue also.

I thought Bachmann’s response to the question, “If you’re elected president, what will you bring to the White House?” was interesting.

She said she would bring a copy of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

That’s a strange response (to me). It makes it sound like she’s not aware that the Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and that when we talk about the Constitution, we generally consider it in its whole — as amended.

Are the amendments ratified after the Bill of Rights chopped liver and not worth bringing to the White House?

As she likes to present herself as a “strict constitutional conservative”, it just struck me as odd. I know I’m being a nit and this doesn’t matter, it was just weird.

Perry handled himself quite well, and is getting better and better in this format. Perry is growing on me, while the others are not. Additionally, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the fact he is “doubling down” on his SS/Ponzi scheme analogy. It shows an amalgam of leadership, backbone, and understanding. His comments to Romney about poker were my personal favorite lines. I would like Huntsman to exit the stage, if Johnson and others not polling significantly are not permitted. Newt should remain, as he nails the media exceptionally well.